Embargoes , Extradition and Sanctions
Embargo
Embargoes serve as a powerful tool to impose a
comprehensive ban on trade, investment, and economic activities, specifically
targeting a particular country or group of countries. These measures are
strategically implemented to apply pressure on a nation, compelling it to
reconsider its policies, actions, or address potential threats. The scope of an
embargo can range from restricting specific goods and services to imposing
comprehensive economic barriers affecting multiple sectors.
Example : EU embargo on Russia
Extradition
In an extradition, one
jurisdiction delivers a person accused or convicted of committing a crime in
another jurisdiction, into the custody of the other's law enforcement.
Extradion - India
The Extradition Act 1962, as amended from time to time provides the legislative basis for extradition of a fugitive criminal (FC) from India. A copy of the Extradition Act, 1962 is available at http://www.mea.gov.in.
Central Authority
for Extradition Matters
In the Government of India, the Ministry of External Affairs acts as the Central Authority for extradition matters. Within
the Ministry of External Affairs, (Consular, Passport and Visa) CPV Division is the nodal point for dealing
with extradition matters.
Who is a Fugitive Criminal
‘Fugitive Criminal’ means a person who is accused
or convicted of an extradition offence within the jurisdiction of a foreign
State and includes a person who, while in India, conspires, attempts to commit
or incites or participates as an accomplice in the commission of an extradition
offence in a foreign State. (Section 2(f) of Extradition Act, 1962)
The Fugitive Economic Offenders Act (FEOA) of 2018
The Fugitive Economic Offenders Act
(FEOA) of 2018 was created to confiscate the assets of people who flee India to
avoid criminal prosecution. The act also aims to preserve the rule of law in India.
The Fugitive Economic
Offenders Act, 2018 empowers any special court to confiscate all properties and assets of economic offenders who are charged in offences measuring over INR 100
crores and are evading prosecution by remaining outside the jurisdiction of
Indian courts.
Examples of Extradition
a). Extradition of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack accused Tahawwur Rana
A US district court first ordered his extradition toIndia in May 2023. After losing his legal battle in lower courts and several
federal courts, including the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San
Francisco, Rana filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before the Supreme
Court on November 13 2024.
US President Donald Trump on Thursday (13 Feb2025) announced the extradition of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack accused
Tahawwur Rana to India and said he will face justice. He made the announcement
at the joint press conference with Prime Minister Narendra Modi following their
bilateral meeting at the White House.
Rana, a former doctor and businessman, is a Canadian citizen of Pakistani origin. He was arrested in 2009 in Chicago for his links to a Pakistan-backed terror network. The FBI charged him with supporting Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the terror group responsible for the Mumbai attacks. Though he was convicted in the US for aiding LeT, he was acquitted of charges directly linked to the Mumbai attacks. However, Indian authorities have long maintained that Rana played a crucial role by allowing David Coleman Headley, one of the key planners, to use his immigration business as a cover to conduct reconnaissance in Mumbai.
Once extradited, Rana is expected to face trialin India for his alleged involvement in the attacks that left A total of 166 people, including six
Americans, were killed in the Mumbai terror attacks in which 10 Pakistani
terrorists laid a more than 60-hour siege, attacking and killing people at
iconic and vital locations in Mumbai between November 23 and November 29 in
2008.
Indian Authorities Prepare for Rana’s Arrival
A team from India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) is
expected to travel to the US soon to complete the necessary formalities.
Reports suggest that senior officers of Inspector General and Deputy Inspector
General rank will be part of the delegation. Their mission is to oversee Rana’s
transfer and ensure all legal requirements are met.
Indian authorities have been pursuing his
extradition for years, determined to hold all those responsible for the attack
accountable.
With the legal hurdles now cleared, all that
remains is the final execution of the extradition order. As the process moves
forward, Indian security agencies are preparing for Rana’s return, marking a
significant step towards justice for the victims of the 26/11 Mumbai
terror attacks.
b). Extradition of Indians left nation after crimes in India
The Hon’ble High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, London(UK) has today (09/11/2022) dismissed the appeal of fugitive accused Mr.Nirav Deepak Modi in extradition matter.
On 25th February, 2021, the District Judge, Westminster Magistrates’ Court had
handed down his decision and found that there were no bars on the extradition
of Mr. Nirav Modi & the Court had sent the case to Secretary of State, U.K.
On 15th April, 2021, the Secretary of State ordered Mr.Nirav Modi’s extradition
to India. Mr.Nirav Modi filed application before the Hon’ble High Court of
Justice, London (U.K.) seeking permission to appeal on multiple grounds. On 9th
August, 2021, the High Court of Justice, London gave Mr. Modi the
permission to appeal on the following two grounds:-
- His
extradition would be incompatible with his convention rights under Article
3 of European Convention on Human Rights; and
- It
would be unjust or oppressive within the meaning of Section 91 of UK Extradition
Act 2003 to extradite him by virtue of his physical & mental
condition.
All other grounds of appeal were rejected.
A high-level
team of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Enforcement Directorate (ED)
and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) visited the United Kingdom in a bid to expedite the
extradition of wanted fugitives Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, and Sanjay Bhandari,
the Times of India reported on 16 Jan 2024.
According to the report, the team headed by a senior officer from the Ministry of External Affairs, sources said. Some meetings have also been scheduled by the Indian High Commission in London with UK officials to seek pending information on the seized assets of the wanted fugitives under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT).
Vijay Mallya
Beleaguered businessman Vijay Mallya was declared a
fugitive in 2019 under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, about four
years after he fled to the UK in March 02, 2016. Mallya is wanted over defaulting
17 Indian banks an estimated Rs 9,000 crore that was loaned to now-defunct
Kingfisher Airlines (KFA).
Nirav Modi
Diamond merchant Nirav Modi, wanted in India on fraud
and money laundering charges, is currently lodged in Thameside prison, located
in London. He had fled from India on January 1, 2018 and was arrested in March
2019 following an extradition warrant based on CBI and ED’s charges against
him.
Mr. Modi is currently languishing in privately run Thameside prison in Greenwich, where he was transferred in September 2024 from the Wandsworth jail. On April 16, 2024 he had moved yet another application before the Westminster Magistrate’s Court citing long incarceration. However, it was dismissed during the hearing on May 7, 2024.
Sanctions
Sanctions
represent a set of punitive measures, often economic in nature, imposed by one
or more countries against a targeted country, entity, or individual. The
purpose of sanctions is to hinder specific actions or activities, such as trade
or financial transactions, in order to enforce international laws, safeguard
national security interests, and uphold ethical and human rights standards.
Sanctions can be unilateral, imposed by a single country, or multilateral,
enacted by a coalition of countries or international organizations.
Embargoes and Sanctions can be from powerful players in international trade when applied to nations. Sanctions can be on individuals, groups, any kind of business organisations and nations applied by single country or international organisations as per global charter agreed upon by member nations such as United Nations.
To address violations of international law, human rights abuses, other state-sponsored crimes, and threats to international security, governments may impose sanctions against designated targets around the world.
Embargoes & Sanctions - The UN
The Security Council can take action
to maintain or restore international peace and security under Chapter VII of
the United Nations Charter. Sanctions measures, under Article 41, encompass a
broad range of enforcement options that do not involve the use of armed
force. Since 1966, the Security Council has established 31 sanctions
regimes, in Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, the Former Yugoslavia (2), Haiti
(2), Angola, Liberia (3), Eritrea/Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire,
Iran, Somalia/Eritrea, ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida, Iraq (2), Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Lebanon, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
Libya (2), the Taliban, Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, Yemen, South
Sudan and Mali.
Security Council sanctions have
taken a number of different forms, in pursuit of a variety of goals. The
measures have ranged from comprehensive economic and trade sanctions to more
targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, and financial or
commodity restrictions. The Security Council has applied sanctions to support
peaceful transitions, deter non-constitutional changes, constrain terrorism,
protect human rights and promote non-proliferation.
Sanctions do not operate, succeed or
fail in a vacuum. The measures are most effective at maintaining or restoring
international peace and security when applied as part of a comprehensive
strategy encompassing peacekeeping, peacebuilding and peacemaking. Contrary to
the assumption that sanctions are punitive, many regimes are designed to
support governments and regions working towards peaceful transition. The Libyan
and Guinea-Bissau sanctions regimes all exemplify this approach.
Sanctions by Countries
The efficacy of
sanctions depends on the ability of the issuing country to enforce them.
Regulatory bodies, such as the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of
Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), publish sanction lists identifying
designated targets. Countries then enforce compliance through regulations and
impose criminal penalties for violations.
Since sanctioned individuals or entities often seek to circumvent
sanctions and continue conducting financial transactions, sanctions screening
is crucial to AML regulatory compliance. Financial institutions (FIs) must,
therefore, not only understand their compliance obligations but also stay
updated on the latest sanctions and implement effective measures to address
them.
Sanctions by India
The Government of India implements sanctions by way of
notifications from time to time. These sanctions may be against specific
individuals, organizations, or countries. The sanctions imposed by India can
generally be classified into two categories: (i) trade / economic sanctions in
respect of exports from and imports into India and (ii) sanctions relating to
the security and integrity of India. India has economic sanctions in place
targeting Iraq, Iran, Somalia and North Korea. Recently, as a result of the
border disputes with China, the Government of India has introduced various
economic sanctions against China, including banning the use of certain Chinese
technology applications in India.
the Indian Government may implement UN sanctions through the
United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 (“UNSCA”). Under the UNSCA, the Government of India is authorized to take any measures to give effect to any decision of the UN security council.
The most frequently applied measures in India are: arms embargoes;
embargoes on nuclear related and ballistic missile related materials; or
embargoes on other UN-specified goods or materials.
While India does not have a consolidated list of sanctions, the
Indian sanctions regime targets individuals and entities that have been listed
by the UN, namely in the ISIL (Da’esh) & Al-Qaeda Sanctions List and the
Taliban Sanctions List.
Further, under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (“UAPA”) (which grants powers to the specified authorities to prevent, monitor and report suspected and identified unlawful activities), the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, (“MHA”) has issued the Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism (Implementation of Security Council Resolutions) Order, 2009 (“2009 Order”). Pursuant to the 2009 Order, the MHA has notified a list of individuals, groups, and organizations which are suspected of being, or are classified as terrorist organizations (“Sanctioned Persons”). The list of Sanctioned Persons is amended by the MHA and the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India (“MEA”) from time to time.
Chapter 2 of the Foreign Trade Policy (“FTP”)
provides a list of economic sanctions imposed against countries and regions.
Some of the key sanctions set out in Chapter 2 of the FTP are set out below:
(i) the import/export of Arms and related material from/to Iraq is ‘Prohibited’. However, export of Arms and related material to Government of Iraq is permitted subject to a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Department of Defence Production. (ii) Trade with the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Daesh), Al Nusrah Front (ANF) and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al Qaida has been prohibited. (iii) Direct or indirect import/export from/to Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, import of charcoal form Somalia is prohibited. (iv) Direct or indirect import to Iran or import of specified items, materials or goods from Iran is restricted.
Where any person attempts, makes or abets the carrying out of
any import or export in contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Trade
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (the “Act”)
and the FTP, that person will be liable to a penalty of not less than INR
10,000 and not more than five times the value of the goods or services or
technology in respect of which any contravention is made or attempted to be
made, whichever is more. The person may also be liable to a penalty under the
Customs Act 1962 which includes imprisonment.
Without prejudice to any other penalty which may be imposed, in the case of a contravention relating to specified goods, services or technologies (as defined in the Act), the penalty will be in accordance with the provisions of the Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Delivery Systems (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities) Act 2005, which includes imprisonment.
Further, the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 which regulates the exchange control regime in India provides that if a person contravenes any provision of FEMA or any rule, regulation, notification, direction or order issued under FEMA, then such person shall, upon adjudication, be liable to a penalty up to thrice the sum involved in such contravention where such amount is quantifiable, or up to two lakh rupees where the amount is not quantifiable, and where such contravention is a continuing one, further penalty which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day after the first day during which the contravention continues.
On 30 October 2024, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) sanctioned 21 Indian entities, including 19 companies and 2 individuals from India. This action has been taken by the U.S. Government pursuant to its Executive Order (EO) 14024, which provides for US sanctions against individuals and entities who/that have directly, indirectly or attempted to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support for or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, directly or indirectly, the Government of the Russian Federation.
Government of India is engaged with
the U.S. Government on this matter. It has been conveyed to the U.S. Government
that India has a robust legal and regulatory framework governing export of
controlled and dual-use goods and technologies that is fully in compliance with
its international obligations on non-proliferation. As a responsible member of
the international community, India actively participates in key multilateral
non-proliferation export control regimes (Wassenaar Arrangement, Australia
Group and the Missile Technology Control Regime) and contributes to the
development and review of their control lists and guidelines. India also
ensures the effective implementation of UN Security Council sanctions and the
UN Security Council resolution 1540 on non-proliferation. Government also
regularly sensitizes Indian companies on export controls, including through
regular outreach events in an effort to ensure that companies are not
contravening India laws.
India does not have an autonomous (or unilateral) sanctions program, despite being the world’s second most populous nation, the fifth largest economy and an annual exporter of almost $500B in goods and services. Nearly every other large country has an autonomous sanctions program – including China, which started issuing sanctions in 2019 – and so do all of India's immediate neighbors, including Bangladesh. India’s reluctance toward sanctions as a tool of diplomacy traces to the nation’s history as a target of sanctions. Though New Delhi complies with United Nations (UN) sanctions, it has opposed unilateral sanctions as a form of economic protectionism.
Happy Reading,
Those who read this, also read,
1. Combating Financing Terrorism
3. India's CFT - Programme Implementation
Comments
Post a Comment